V. I. Lenin

Remarks on an Article About Maximalism{2}

Written:Written after December 7 (20), 1910Published:First published in 1962 in Vol. 30 of the Fifth Russian edition of theCollected Works.

      Printed from the original.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1977,

      Moscow,Volume 41,

      pages384.2-387.1.Translated:Yuri SdobnikovTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaCopyleft:V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marxists.org)
      © 2004

      Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the
      terms of theGNU Free Documentation License.

Page 6(Paragraph 2). Here there should be an insertion
saying that Potresov has nowin factdisavowed these propositions
(of Kautsky + Hilferding, etc.) containing a repudiation of reformism in
principle. Potresov has become a reformist.

(Itis not right to confine oneself to the statement: “we have never
had the intention of proving”; this should be put forward asp r o v e d,  and Potresov should be challenged:
you and especially Maslov & Co. ofDyelo{3}have in fact, but tacitly, like cowards, altogether
gone over fromthis positionto reformism.)

Page 7(end of § I) “mass action”?? It would be better to put
this otherwise, without using this word which has the fault that, beinglargelycaused by theG e r m a ncensorship (a
pseudonym forrevolution), it tends to obscure the concept ofrevolution. (There will have to be a reckoning on this later with
Pannekoek + Radek & Co.!! Here is an example: there is no German
censorship in Switzerland and here the term “mass action” hasa l r
e a d ybrought about confusion which the reformists find useful.)

Butthat is not the main thing. The main point is in your idea, which
isbasically incorrect, that “those of its (minimum programme)
demands ... add up to atransitionto a basically different social
system” (page 7, § II,e t  a l.)  (idem, p. 9).

Thatis quite wrong!!N e v e ris a “transition to a
basically different social system” achievede i t h e rby the
definite demands of the minimum programme (“those of its demands”)or the sumtotal of the minimum-programmedemands. To think so is to move over to the reformist position in principle
and to abandon the stand point of the socialist revolution.

Theminimum programme is one which is in principlecompatiblewith capitalism anddoes not go beyondits framework.

Youmay have wanted to say that where society is objectively mature for
socialism, the implementation of thesum totalof the
minimum-programme demandswould p r o d u c esocialism. But
oven that is not so. The only thing that can be said is thatit is most
probablein practice that out of any serious struggle for themajorminimum-programme demandsthere will flare upa
struggle for socialism and thatwe, at any rate, are working in
that direction.

Anotherthing should not be forgotten, and this is some thing Pannekoek
+ Radek do forget, namely, that imperialism is the exploitation of hundreds
of millions in the dependent nations by a handful of very rich
nations. Hence, the possibility of full democracy inside the richest nation
withits continueddomination over dependent nations. That was the
state of things in ancient Greece on the basis of slavery. That is how
things now stand with New Zealand and Britain.

(Bythe way: page 8 is not good. That’snotthe way to put
it. For instance, in the epoch of imperialism and the high cost of living
“bread” is precisely the thing you will not get through reformalone.

Page8—defence against Potresov’s charge. The thing to
|_

do is not to defend yourself, but to attack:you c o n f i n e  y o u
r s e l fto reforms, as the liberals did in Russia in 1904.)

Page10—in 1905; the liberalsconfined themselves|_

to reforms; we demanded, preached, prepared, etc., the revolution. Here it
is not a question of “concreteness”, but of the basic principle (essence)
of any revolution:
displacement of the old class and winning of “all power”
  (d e rMacht)by the newclass.

(Page10 bottom—you deal with the proletarian “reform” in a
terribly clumsy and imprudent way, although you do want to say:
“revolution”!! What you should say is perhaps:
“As in Russia in 1904 it is not reforms but ar e f o r m)

Page 11is all quite wrong.Imperialismwill produce both the
8–hour working day and the “arming of the people”againstthe socialist revolution. That is precisely the point over
which the struggle willnotunfold. And, in general, it will not be
    over the minimum programme.

Imperialismwill produce “Bulygin Dumas” and reformsagainstthe revolution. We shall be for the revolution.

“Themost important questions of the present day” willnotbe and aren o tthose you name, but the high cost of living
(1) + (2)
imperialist wars.

Reformsare powerless against the high cost of living (in the presence of the
trusts, etc.), as they were against the autocracy in Russia in 1904–05.

Youhave incorrectly put the question of reform, and of the minimum
programme, and of democracy.

#[[

I very strongly recommend rewriting it, confining yourself,for the time
being(for a small article inVoprosy Strakhovaniya), to the
antithesis: You, Mr. Potresov, are a full-fledgedreformist, you confine
yourself to “reforms”, youhave forgottenthe
significance and meaning of the “formula”: “not
 reforms, but a reform”, the significance and meaning
 of the quoted statements by Kautsky + Hilferding ++Bauer, etc.Dyelo=ideologically quite
 mature organ ofreformism, of the bourgeois labour party.

The“three
pillars”{4}beforethe revolution were an
extension of the struggle for reform. And that is exactly how the question is
formulated in the Manifesto of the Zimmerwald Left: all struggle for reform must
be channeled and transformedinto strugglefor revolution.

Ido not think self-determination of nations should be set out as the
“most important” in general: in so doing you go miles beyond what we
have been saying until now. By coming out in this way you would force me to join
up against you with—oh, horrible thought!—Bukharin!!!

Isn’tit better to leave this question aside for the time being, rewriting
the article
à la # —and to work out some thing
in the form of theses, let us say, on the attitude to the minimum programme,
etc., for dispatch to the Bureau, etc.?

#Phrases about “maximalism” are nothing but attacks by areformiston therevolutionaries(“opponents of
reformismin principle” for the censorship). In general, it is an exceptionally
difficult thing and heikle sehr heikle
Sache!!{1}to treat ofs u c ha question in the censored press.

{1}A ticklish, a very ticklish matter!!—Ed.

{2}These are Lenin’s remarks to an article by G. Y. Zinoviev on maximalism
intended for publication in the journalKommunistor thenewspaperSotsial-Demokrat. The article did not appear in the
press.

p. 384

{3}Dyelo(The Cause)—a fortnightly Menshevik journal, published
in Moscow from August 1916 to January 1917 under the editorship of
A. N. Potresov, P. P. Maslov and L. I. Axelrod (Orthodox). In 1916, there
were ten issues (three of them double issues), and in 1917—one. The
journal took a chauvinist attitude.

p. 384

{4}Three pillars—the accepted designation in the legal
Bolshevik press and at open, legal meetings of the three basic
(“uncurtailed”) revolutionary slogans: democratic republic, 8–hour
working day and confiscation of all landed estates.

p. 386